Gimme that Old Pharisee Religion

Their next step will be to find and pay some people somewhere, perhaps in the Third World, who will swear that Darwin's ouevre is their Sacred Text, and thus evolution is a religion.

I would like to thank the Pharisees from giving us such great scientific discoveries as theory of evolution and the Big Bang. Just wish they had come out with it earlier.

This is so cool, it escaped my notice that Pharisees were involved in the moving earth conspiracy, as well as everything else.

hmm... A creationist using references for support that they haven't read themselves..... This has never happened before, it isn't happening now, and it will never happen again....

Unless of course, a creationist opens his or her mouth, then it is bound to happen again.

Funny that all this time I've been mocking Creationists with "next you'll be 'skeptical' that the earth revolves around the sun." I'm always a bit uneasy when it gets this difficult to distinguish parody from reality. If I was activly plotting to make Creationists look like backwater hicks and completely ignorant fools who shouldn't be trusted anywhere near policy decisions, I would never have thought of something this brazen. Are we sure fixedearth.com isn't a satire site, like landoverbaptist.org? I'm reluctant to think that I've overestimated Creationists, but this seems more bizarre than even stuff I've seen from ICR.

http://www.fixedearth.com/ is too bad to be a parody. If you haven't actually looked at it, you should.

Actually, this stuff has to be read to be believed. The parallels with some aspect of the ID movement are startling. For instance, take a look at http://www.fixedearth.com/Evol.is%20Religious%20Doctrine.htm.

Indeed, by the late '80's and early '90's a new theory which essentially replaces Darwinism was being entertained and has now become the theory of choice for all evolution-based musings. Astonishingly, no one seems to question how this new theory "coincidentally" fits with and strengthens the Big Bang Paradigm so perfectly! This new theory---labeled "Panspermia" by the Buddhist Wickramasinghe and Agnostic Hoyle---declares that the first life on earth was initiated by bacterium nourished inside of and spread around the universe by Comets, and that each alleged evolutionary advance has also come from outer space.

Borderline anti-semitism nothing; this is blatant, in-your-face "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" caliber anti-semitism. Chisum and Bridges are disgraces to the offices they hold and should both resign immediately; to distribute a memo promoting the web-site of a fixed-earth, anti-semitic raving madman demonstrates that neither of them are fit to be dogcatchers, much less legislators.

The real fun thing is that these christian apologists base their attack on evolution on jewish apologists attempts to reconcile their religious texts with science.

And since they base their claims on old science, they are falsified: "15.3 billion years", "between 14 and 16 billion years" and "15 ¾ billion years" vs 13.7 +0.1/-0.2 billion years for the Lambda-CDM model.

IIRC older data sets often suggested something just above 15 billion years. Imagine that, the jewish apologists correctly predicted that! I am pretty sure they now 'correctly predict' 13.7 billion years instead. :-)

These types of cdesign proponentsists do more for the cause of science than they realize. Oh and they should take off their tin-foil hats before making public appearances.

This has been going around the blogs for about a week now. I must admit it sends me into uproarous laughter each time. These are the very people who claim that we need to treat their ideas with respect. Oh now wait right there I have a whole bucket of respect here.... Ahh well no I guess not, it is a bucket full of piss and really that is all their ideas are worth. We need to loudly and frequently mock these IDiots.

The Kabbalistic Pharisitic Big Bang Gang. It has a nice jingle to it.

JamesR wrote ... it is a bucket full of piss and really that is all their ideas are worth.

A bucket of spit, on the other hand...

1. As a secular humanist Jew and Cohenim, all I can say is... you are welcome.

2. So according to the nutballs, was Darwin Jewish? An elder of zion? I guess the beard is confusing. I always thought he was Amish.

3. Seriously, is this a post-Dover opening salvo in a (not so) new tactic to get evolution (I mean evilution; that is Jewlution) out of the schools... after Dover, by claiming that evolution is also a religion?

Jokes aside, I have to say that this may be an indication that "Evolution is religion" IS about the only tactic left for the ID/Creationist groups to use. This guy may just be ahead of the curve in trying it.

Certainly we hear plenty of claim that Darwin requires as much faith as religion, is treated religiously, etc.

"This scenario is derived concept-for-concept from Rabbinic writings in the mystic "holy book" Kabbala dating back at least two millennia."

There is no such "holy book" nor did Kabbalah exist prior to about 500 years ago when De Leon disseminated the founding work of the Kabbalah movement known as the Zohar.

Just another example of Christian ignorance about Judaism, on top of mistranslating and grotesquely distorting the Hebrew Bible to make it conflict with science. Disgusting!

WOW!

Carol has some kinda radar up.

haven't seen you around here in a while, and I just recently (an hour ago) mentioned you over on pharyngula, and BANG, here you are.

could you do me a favor?

they didn't believe me when I tried to explain the philosophy behind the hyena/zebra thing.

could you explain that whole thing again so I have it fresh in mind?

seriously, I don't want to be misinterpreting your arguments.

thanks

As has been pointed out elsewhere, Creationists condemning evolution and the big bang as the work of Jewish Kabbalists, while they themselves subscribe to the Jewish myth of creation described in Genesis, is as ironic as it gets.

Carol: Please, please, please, give us, in English, just a few verses of the 'correct' version of the Bible. Feel free to use as many footnotes as you consider necessary to get over all the nuances that are missed in other translations.

For those not familiar with her, Carol pops by every now and then to insist that there is one 'true' version of the Bible in which nothing contradicts modern science, but she never does us the courtesy of providing an example and contrasting it with any other translation.

... but then you wouldn't buy the book. Duh.

Richard wrote:

"For those not familiar with her, Carol pops by every now and then to insist that there is one 'true' version of the Bible in which nothing contradicts modern science, but she never does us the courtesy of providing an example and contrasting it with any other translation."

I see two blatant falsehoods in your statement. They are:

(1) I have done you the courtesy of providing MANY examples and have debated them extensively here. Usually, after you folks lose the argument, I am told to take it elsewhere.

(2) I don't "insist" that there is one true version of the Bible, I just remind folks that there is only one Hebrew Bible extant today and it ought not be translated sloppily and incompetently.

What I have stated, and nothing I ever encountered here has remotely persuaded me otherwise, is that the Hebrew Bible can be interpreted literally and yet not confict with science so long as it is understood and translated accurately and correctly.

(3)

carol; about the zebra/hyena thing?

indulge me?

many are curious.

Can anyone give me a link to an example of a 'correct' translation of part of the Bible provided by Carol? Preferably one that does not conflict with science where most translations show a conflict. All I remember has been lengthy arguments on whether a certain word meant 'servant' or whether the concept of 'slave' was also included and such like issues.

Can anyone give me a link to an example of a 'correct' translation of part of the Bible provided by Carol?

Richard,

Well, why don't we start with you telling us what the very first verse in the Hebrew Bible, correctly translated, states?

If you think it states "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth", think again!

What more need I say? The very first verse is incorrect!

For more examples go check the archives here. You will discover that, contrary to TJM's remark "she did, and we have" in spades.

TJM,

I checked Pharyngula and you certainly mangled my position beyond recognition. But since you are not sincerely interested in considering opposing views, I am not in the mood to get into the zebra/hyena matter here where it does not belong.

Carol said: What I have stated, and nothing I ever encountered here has remotely persuaded me otherwise, is that the Hebrew Bible can be interpreted literally and yet not confict with science so long as it is understood and translated accurately and correctly.

I checked Pharyngula and you certainly mangled my position beyond recognition.

For more examples go check the archives here.

If you think it states "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth", think again!

Mark P wrote:

"The notion that all those highly motivated, highly learned scholars, over all these hundreds of years, managed to mistranslate the most read book on the planet (or at least the most owned), is preposterous on its face without a mountain of evidence. Writing a "proper" translation, submitting it to a review of Hebrew scholars, and making it publicly available, would be a good start."

Hey, we have been through all these arguments before, many times. I am not the one making the claim for the first time, I am merely the messenger bringing you the bad (or good) news. Jewish Hebrew scholars, whose native language was Hebrew and whose expertise is unquestionable and unimpeachable, have been commenting on the Hebrew Bible for centuries and millennia before King James' "scholars" were running around in diapers learning English as their first language.

The great commentator Rashi, who lived some 900 years ago, makes it abundantly clear that the first verse does NOT state what the KJV says it does. This is all out there, it has been submitted time and again for centuries, it is very publicly available, all YOU need do is make the effort with an open mind to look.

Besides, I KNOW Hebrew and I KNOW how terrible the KJV and its successor translations are. They even contain entire phrases that are not in the text (such as "He made the stars also"). I cannot help it if YOU don't know Hebrew. But YOU can help it. It just happens to be the language of the Bible and the others are all translations, some even translations of other translations.

And if you refuse to rectify the problem of your ignorance, you ought to stop pontificating about matters you know nothing about.

Jewish Hebrew scholars, whose native language was Hebrew and whose expertise is unquestionable and unimpeachable,

The great commentator Rashi, who lived some 900 years ago, makes it abundantly clear that the first verse does NOT state what the KJV says it does.

Well, why don't we start with you telling us what the very first verse in the Hebrew Bible, correctly translated, states? If you think it states "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth", think again! What more need I say? The very first verse is incorrect!

Richard wrote:

"But you've still not provided what you consider to be a correct translation!In a later post you refer to what Rashi says, and say it is very publicly available. Not here, it aint."

Well, Richard, Rashi's commentary has itself been translated into English. So here is your assignment. Apply your googling skills and check out Rashi on the first verse. Then report back to us.

If this is not up your alley, let us know and I will convey to you the gist of Rashi's analysis and conclusion. But hearing it from a secondary source will deny you the pleasure of reading Rashi in the original.

Carol: You still have not answered a very important practical question: What, exactly, is the point of treating an ancient Hebrew religious text as a repository of scientific knowledge, when we can't prove it so without consulting modern scientific publications? As long as we have to read the modern scientific publications to verify the usefulness of the HEbrew texts as science, and as long as the modern stuff doesn't have any of those cumbersome translation problems, then treating the Hebrew texts as science is nothing more than a waste of time that contributes nothing new to our current knowledge of science.

Do you really think an all-knowing God would expect his people to find a holy book useful as science-in-disguise? That seems like an awfully impractical use to make of any holy text.

Jewish Hebrew scholars, whose native language was Hebrew and whose expertise is unquestionable and unimpeachable

The great commentator Rashi, who lived some 900 years ago, makes it abundantly clear that the first verse does NOT state what the KJV says it does. This is all out there, it has been submitted time and again for centuries, it is very publicly available, all YOU need do is make the effort with an open mind to look.

Besides, I KNOW Hebrew and I KNOW how terrible the KJV and its successor translations are.

They even contain entire phrases that are not in the text (such as "He made the stars also").

I cannot help it if YOU don't know Hebrew. But YOU can help it. It just happens to be the language of the Bible and the others are all translations, some even translations of other translations.

And if you refuse to rectify the problem of your ignorance, you ought to stop pontificating about matters you know nothing about.

Jewish Hebrew scholars, whose native language was Hebrew and whose expertise is unquestionable and unimpeachable

The great commentator Rashi, who lived some 900 years ago, makes it abundantly clear that the first verse does NOT state what the KJV says it does. This is all out there, it has been submitted time and again for centuries, it is very publicly available, all YOU need do is make the effort with an open mind to look.

Besides, I KNOW Hebrew and I KNOW how terrible the KJV and its successor translations are.

They even contain entire phrases that are not in the text (such as "He made the stars also").

More questions for Carol. You wrote:

Jewish Hebrew scholars [including that Rashi guy you mention], whose native language was Hebrew and whose expertise is unquestionable and unimpeachable, have been commenting on the Hebrew Bible for centuries and millennia before King James' "scholars" were running around in diapers learning English as their first language.

Did these Jewish scholars specifically state in their comments that their "correct" translation of their Bible contained significant scientific knowledge, as you and Landa allege? If so, was it the scientific knowledge of OUR time, or of THEIR time?

Can you quote an example of any of these scholars citing a bit of scientific knowledge from their Bible that contradicted the current understanding, but has since been proven true? (Like heliocentrism, for example.)

Carol: You still have not answered a very important practical question: What, exactly, is the point of treating an ancient Hebrew religious text as a repository of scientific knowledge, when we can't prove it so without consulting modern scientific publications? As long as we have to read the modern scientific publications to verify the usefulness of the HEbrew texts as science, and as long as the modern stuff doesn't have any of those cumbersome translation problems, then treating the Hebrew texts as science is nothing more than a waste of time that contributes nothing new to our current knowledge of science. Do you really think an all-knowing God would expect his people to find a holy book useful as science-in-disguise? That seems like an awfully impractical use to make of any holy text.

Carol said: And if you refuse to rectify the problem of your ignorance, you ought to stop pontificating about matters you know nothing about.

I've had a quick Google on Rashi with "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" and from what I can gather looking at the first few pages that cropped up the opening line is ungrammatical Hebrew, which is why the interpretation of it is disputed.

Rashi said it would be better to understand it as "In the beginning of God's creating of heaven and earth". However, it seems clear that this was his interpretation of what was intended, not what was actually written, as others disagreed with him.

Carol: it is basic courtesy when you make sweeping statements that are contrary to general opinion to give people a clear idea of where they can find your supporting evidence, not to condescendingly say things like "I cannot help it if YOU don't know Hebrew. But YOU can help it." and "So here is your assignment. Apply your googling skills . . ."

And you have still not identified any verses in the 'correct' translation which agree with modern science where other translations do not. There is no way I am going to try to track down Rashi's translation (did he make one - I did not see any reference to it in the pages I googled. What language was it into?) and scour the whole thing with my KJV in the other hand trying to find the passages you have in mind. Apart from anything else, I don't believe they exist.

Richard,

Let me help you out a bit there with that commentary by Rashi. And by the way, the overwhelming majority of ancient scholars agree with Rashi's analysis. The meaning of the first verse is to say, "In the beginning of God's creation of the heaven and the earth."

That additional word "of" changes the entire meaning of that verse and the following verses. Instead of a declarative sentence telling us that first God created heaven and earth, we have an introductory comment which continues with the next verse. The phrase "heaven and earth" is therefore a euphimism for "all that exists" and the intent is to set the stage and the background behind the first creation-event, that of light.

Anyone with a modicum of knowledge of Hebrew knows that that is the simplest, plainest and most likely meaning, by far, of the first Hebrew verse. That King James' translators went astray from this interpretation is testimony to their sloppiness and ignorance.

The other verse I cited in passing above, is another example. It is not a question of whether "He made the stars also" is in italics or not, that is entirely irrelevent. The point is IT IS WRONG. That is not what the Hebrew verse means to say. Instead, the meaning is, "...and the smaller light to rule over the night and the stars". There is no creation of stars discussed here at all.

Did you ever hear of a death of a thousand cuts? By mangling the interpretation of every second verse in so many ways, each of seemingly small significance, the whole story is altered beyond recognition.

Anyone with a modicum of knowledge of Hebrew knows that that is the simplest, plainest and most likely meaning, by far, of the first Hebrew verse.

Carol worte:

Instead of a declarative sentence telling us that first God created heaven and earth, we have an introductory comment which continues with the next verse. The phrase "heaven and earth" is therefore a euphimism for "all that exists" and the intent is to set the stage and the background behind the first creation-event, that of light.

The difference between these two translations/interpretations is laughably inconsequential -- either way, God created the Universe. I find it unbearably sad to think you spent a significant amount of time quibbling over such trivial "differences" of interpretation.

This example does absolutely nothing to advance or prove your thesis that scientific truth can be found in a "literal" reading of the original Hebrew text.

GuyeFaux wrote:

"I don't want to misrepresent you, but it seems that here you're admitting that even the most straightforward sentence admits multiple meanings, even in Hebrew. In which case a definitive interpretation seems preposterous."

No doubt there are certain Hebrew words, probably more so than in some other major languages, with multiple definitions. That is not the case in this verse (Genesis 1:1) but when it does occur we are compelled to look at other literary devices such as context, purpose and even tradition. This is why Jews are commanded by the Bible, which was written by and for them, not just to study the Torah but to toil in it. And toil and sweat is what is called for. The books of commentary on the Hebrew Bible can easily fill huge libraries. The Talmud itself consists of 60 volumes.

Raging Bee,

I don't want to be discourtious to you by continuing to ignore you, but your comments don't leave me much of a choice. They are entirely irrelevent to this discussion and totally misrepresent my views. I never remotely argued that the Bible is to be used as a source of scientific information. And, of course, the Bible states that God created the universe. The Bible has its own agenda which does not incorporate disseminating scientific data nor does it include the goal of becoming a best seller nor does it care whether you are pleased with its style or substance.

The only issue I address is the question of whether science does or does not necessarily contradict anything stated in the Bible. My answer to that is, no. I suspect that displeases some folks here, you included, but that is just too bad.

The only issue I address is the question of whether science does or does not necessarily contradict anything stated in the Bible. My answer to that is, no.

And the evidence you provide to support your answer is, nil.

If you want to convince us that nothing in the Bible contradicts science, then you need to take a passage that is currently believed to contradict science, show us how it has been misinterpreted or mistranslated, then provide an alternate translation/interpretation that does not contradict science. The examples you have provided, true though they may be, do not support your thesis.

Of course, we sensible theists, Christian and non-Christian alike, have this issue easily covered already: we simply understand that a) the Bible is not a literal document, and most of its relevance is lost in a literalistic reading; and b) the Bible is not supposed to say anything about science at all, it's primary subject is Man's relationship to God.

The Bible has its own agenda which does not incorporate disseminating scientific data nor does it include the goal of becoming a best seller...

Nor, apparently, does it include offering any examples to back up your claims about it. On that, at least, we can agree.

Richard,

Since I have this nagging feeling that my previous post will seem somewhat incomplete to you, let me elaborate just a little more here. Please keep in mind that this is not the place for a line-by-line analysis of, say, the first eleven chapters in Genesis. That would require an entire book (and I can recommend some to you).

A careful reading and accurate translation of the story of creation in Hebrew reveals the following divergences from commonly assumed misconceptions.

(1) The Bible speaks of seven eras not in chronological order, instead of seven days in chronological order. (One era, a second era, and so on, instead of the first day, the second day, and so on)

(2) There is no discussion of the first human in Genesis. The Hebrew ADAM (as opposed to the English name Adam) that appears many times refers to "the human" as a species, not the name of an individual. To the extent that an individual is described by the Hebrew name Adam, it is not AT ALL referred to as the first homo sapien.

(3) The first era refers to the period of time soon after the big bang when there was a "explosion" in the number of (light emitting) stars in our universe. As you may know the number of new stars appearing per time declined sharply after that initial record-setting pace that occured over the course of a relatively brief amount of time.

(4) I am not going into all the eras here, but suffice it to say that they each describe a process of development that took some time and that the Bible states was orchestrated by God.

(5) A literal reading is entirely consistent with science in every detail and no Hebrew scholar has ever argued that this interpretation is faulty or erronous. Nor can such an argument be made, as anyone with some knowledge of Hebrew will readily realize.

Raging Bee wrote,

"If you want to convince us that nothing in the Bible contradicts science, then you need to take a passage that is currently believed to contradict science, show us how it has been misinterpreted or mistranslated, then provide an alternate translation/interpretation that does not contradict science. The examples you have provided, true though they may be, do not support your thesis."

Go ahead, you pick one. Take your best shot!

Carol: your first four out of five points are, at least to my non-Hebrew-speaking mind, plausible, sensible, and a perfectly appropriate interpretation for a modern person in the modern era. They are not, however, in any way "literal." Point #2, in particular, refers to Adam as "the human" in general, not a specific individual; but the Bible speaks of his actions as those of an individual. Therefore, while the stories may not be contradictory to science, they are also not "literal," and anyone who says they are is being rather dishonest in his/her use of that word.

And toil and sweat is what is called for. The books of commentary on the Hebrew Bible can easily fill huge libraries.

Raging Bee,

Sorry, but you are wrong. The Hebrew word ADAM is used hundreds of times throughout the Bible, in all manner of contexts, and over 99% of the time it refers to the species. This is not only one of the literal definitions of ADAM, it is the main definition, since a name does not constitute a definition.

Yes, in Genesis the text does refer here and there to an individual by that name. And according to the story, there indeed was such an individual. But the Bible does not claim that he is the first homo sapien. Quite the contrary. It gives EVERY INDICATION that very many folks were around at the time. His grandson builds a city (not a town, not a village, but a city!) and his son is seriously concerned that "all who find me shall kill me". Who is "all"? His parents? Who else is around?

This interpretation is not allegorical, metaphorical, comical, sarcastical or anything other than literal. The text in Genesis gives every indication of being straighforward narrative. To eviscerate it of its intended meaning is a dishonest dodge of the bullet labeled science. I cannot buy into that.

GuyeFaux,

I didn't say Hebrew was "ambiguous" nor did I say the library is filled with "conflicting" interpretations. Please don't put words into my mouth. I try to be careful about my choice of words for a reason.

The other verse I cited in passing above, is another example. It is not a question of whether "He made the stars also" is in italics or not, that is entirely irrelevent. The point is IT IS WRONG. That is not what the Hebrew verse means to say. Instead, the meaning is, "...and the smaller light to rule over the night and the stars". There is no creation of stars discussed here at all.

Did you ever hear of a death of a thousand cuts? By mangling the interpretation of every second verse in so many ways, each of seemingly small significance, the whole story is altered beyond recognition.

The Bible speaks of seven eras not in chronological order

Richard,

Good questions. Let us go through them point by point.

(1) The entire Bible is structured non-chronologically. It is even a Talmudic rule of Bible analysis (EIN MUKDAM UMI-UCHAR BATORAH). The sages explain, and demonstrate, that this is not a measure of disorder in the Bible but one of order dictated by considerations other than the chronological. The normal rules of book writing just do not apply to a divinely inspired document.

In the case of Genesis, the Bible actually signals that the seven eras are not intended to be chronological. It does not say, "the first era", "the second era", and so on, but "one era", "a second era", meaning second in presentation, not in occurrence, and so on. The Bible is counting the eras as it is presenting them, not as they occur ed. They are not only not chronological, they even overlap in occurrence.

(2) I don't know why you are still waiting. Doesn't the era/day issue and the Adam/human issue, just for starters, resonate with you? If you want more, you will need to read up on the matter. I am not retired yet and life must go on.

(3) No. The Hebrew VI-HANACHASH refers to "the cunning one", an evil person in the garden who was jealous of the prominence of Adam and Eve and sought their downfall. The Bible chooses this term for "cunning one" over other possibilities as a play on words according to the principle of AL SHAIM HA-ATID, on the basis of the future, which was that this cunning person lost the ability to walk upright and became serpent-like. This too is a Talmudic rule employed widely in Bible study.

(4) You misunderstand. First, the alternatives to Rashi's translation suffer from a far greater defect - they don't fit the widely employed meaning of BERAISHIT in the Bible, as Rashi demonstrates. Second, Rashi's translation renders the pronunciation of the next word somewhat problematic. It would be more appropriate that it be pronounced BIROH instead of BARA. Third, for thousands of years the Hebrew Bible was transmitted exclusively in the form of handwritten scrolls (like today's Torah scrolls) that contained no symbols under the letters to indicate proper pronunciation. (There are no vowels in Hebrew.) This was left to the oral tradition. The present BARA in Genesis 1:1 is indicated by the dots and dashes under the letters in printed books only and they were inserted much later (only about 600 years ago) to help the uneducated reader. They don't have the authority that the text itself has and Rashi was not perturbed by the slight anomaly BARA posed. To say there is a "grammatical error" is quite misleading.

The normal rules of book writing just do not apply to a divinely inspired document.

I didn't say Hebrew was "ambiguous" nor did I say the library is filled with "conflicting" interpretations. Please don't put words into my mouth. I try to be careful about my choice of words for a reason.

No doubt there are certain Hebrew words, probably more so than in some other major languages, with multiple definitions.

...The normal rules of book writing just do not apply to a divinely inspired document.

Which is why insisting that there is only one-count-it-one "literal" meaning to a Bible story is an extremely dumb idea. While sensible theists -- and even many agnostics and atheists -- are finding all kinds of helpful spiritual truth in the allegories and metaphors in the Bible, you're on a totally pointless quest to make the Bible "scientific," and contributing absolutely nothing to anyone's spiritual betterment, which is what the Bible and other holy texts are all about.

Raging Bee,

You cannot claim divine inspiration and have conflicts with the evidence (that is, science) at the same time. Of course the Hebrew Bible is meant to be understood on a variety of levels. That's what all those volumes of commentary filling up huge libraries are all about. But the simple meaning of the words is one of those levels and it must be truthful, consistent and error free.

Our sages have identified four levels of understanding of the Bible. (1)PISHAT - the simple meaning of the words, even a child should be able to wrap his mind around it, (2) REMEZ - literally "hints", allegories, metaphors, parables, messages between the lines, (3) DIRUSH - derived learning via homily, textual analysis and exegesis, and (4) SOHD - hidden secrets that must be dug up with effort, not readily available to all.

So you don't need to persuade me about the non-literal aspects of the Bible. Studying the Torah in its myriad ways is one of the great joys of my life, on a par with doing physics. But the simple meaning of the words, the PISHAT, still must not be contradicted by the facts if you are to claim divine inspiration.

Our sages have identified four levels of understanding of the Bible. (1)PISHAT - the simple meaning of the words, even a child should be able to wrap his mind around it, (2) REMEZ - literally "hints", allegories, metaphors, parables, messages between the lines, (3) DIRUSH - derived learning via homily, textual analysis and exegesis, and (4) SOHD - hidden secrets that must be dug up with effort, not readily available to all.

Posted by carol clouser on February 22, 2007 8:51 PM (e) (3) No. The Hebrew VI-HANACHASH refers to "the cunning one", an evil person in the garden who was jealous of the prominence of Adam and Eve and sought their downfall. The Bible chooses this term for "cunning one" over other possibilities as a play on words according to the principle of AL SHAIM HA-ATID, on the basis of the future, which was that this cunning person lost the ability to walk upright and became serpent-like. This too is a Talmudic rule employed widely in Bible study.

Our sages have identified four levels of understanding of the Bible. (1)PISHAT - the simple meaning of the words, even a child should be able to wrap his mind around it, (2) REMEZ - literally "hints", allegories, metaphors, parables, messages between the lines, (3) DIRUSH - derived learning via homily, textual analysis and exegesis, and (4) SOHD - hidden secrets that must be dug up with effort, not readily available to all.

And understanding the Bible on any of these levels does NOT demand re-wording it to avoid contradicting science. Because, as I have repeatedly said and you have repeatedly ignored, that's not what the Bible is about. If, for example, the Bible mentions "the ends of the Earth," then it's spiritual truth, or lack thereof, is entierly independent of the fact that the Earth does not have "ends."

If I made a metaphorical statement, about a non-scientific subject, such as "We must hunt terrorists to the ends of the Earth," and you insisted on re-wording it to avoid conflict with known literal science, I would point out that you were changing the subject and refusing to address the point I was trying to make. This is what you are doing with regard to the Bible.

Stephen Elliott wrote:

"Well this is where the Bible confuses me. If God is omniscient/omnipotent and omnibenevolent AND God made everything, where did this "cunning one" come from?
It is a logical absurdity that God is all-powerful and all-knowing and disappointed by man's actions."

Hello Stephen, it has been awhile since I last saw you here.

You are created in God's image, meaning you are free to do good or evil, as you please. You can even easily convince yourself that there is no God. As the great Psalmist says, "and you have made him (humans) a little lower than God." This is the way God wants it and all are free to take advantage of it. This also allows for the "cunning one" as well as Stalin or Hitler.

This is one of the most entertaining threads on PT!

Go at it!

Keep me laughing, Carol C.!

Hello again Carol,
I haven't posted here for some time now.
It was your behaviour that prompted me to do so.

You are being very unfair. You are stating things such as "your interpretation is wrong" while not stating your position at all.
Why should anyone take the time to learn Hebrew to interpret the bible against an unstated opinion?

You would then be free to state "that is the wrong interpretation" or "that is not what I meant".

Not very nice behaviour Carol.

Regards,
Steve E

Stephen wrote:

"It was your behaviour that prompted me to do so. You are being very unfair. You are stating things such as "your interpretation is wrong" while not stating your position at all."

I am sorry you feel that way. I always thought you were one of the nicer folks around here. I thought I have repeatedly stated my position on many subjects in great detail. I certainly am not consciously holding anything back. Indeed I have engaged in extensive debates while being invited to go elsewhere. Surely you must have noticed that.

Where would you like further elaboration?

I hate to interrupt, but did anyone else notice that on the fixed earth page that states "Evolutionism is a religious doctrine." they site 24 sources to support their arguments and almost half of them come from their own website.

http://www.fixedearth.com/Evol.is%20Religious%20Doctrine.htm

They are obviously the foremost authority on the subject since they call on their own literature to support their own arguments. How moronic.

It's not like we haven't had this "discussion" with the Clouserbot dozens of times over the last couple of years.

one wonders at what point folks here will finally conclude that it's just as pointless as "debating" AFDave over in the ATBC area.

In fact, those that have should at least be seeing the similarities.

OTOH, it doesn't stop folks from using Davey as a whipping boy, either.

*shrug*

Carol, now I really want to know something about the so called PISHAT level of understanding, based on things you've said:
1) It is the only literal level at which the Bible can be understood, and
2) It's accessible by anyone, including any child who knows Hebrew.
Then why do you insist that other people's literal interpretations are wrong, if they were based on a semi-competent English translation?

This seems to me to obviously contradict pretty much everything you've said about a literal reading of the Hebrew Bible. Or, at least, should show that your interpretation at this level is no better than mine, even though I have to rely on a translation.

GuyeFaux wrote:

"Then why do you insist that other people's literal interpretations are wrong, if they were based on a semi-competent English translation?"

I really don't know what you are talking about. Look, Hebrew is a language with words that have meaning and rules that dictate how words are put together into sentences. Yes, some words have multiple meanings, as do words in other languages. So there are correct and incorrect translations. It is as simple as that. Yes cannot mean no. BERAISHIT means "In the beginning of", not "in the beginning". VI-ET HA-KOCHAVIM means "and the stars", not "He made the stars also". And so on and on and on. The KJV contains some 200 poor and wrong translations in the first eleven chapters of Genesis alone (the story of creation).

Carol C. --- And got it completely wrong regarding Jonah and the Whale? Ha!

The KJV contains some 200 poor and wrong translations in the first eleven chapters of Genesis alone (the story of creation).

Carol C. --- Jonah and the Whale?

GuyeFaux wrote:

"I'm merely pointing out that, in a semi-competent translation (or Hebrew), it's strongly indicated (certainly to a child's understanding) that the world was literally created in 7 days. And, since there are no other literal levels of understanding, you cannot argue that your literal interpretation (which doesn't claim that the world was created in 7 days) is somehow better."

Well, the word YOHM is one of those Hebrew words with multiple meanings, all of them literal. They are all standard definitions of the word YOHM, so appear in any quality dictionary of ancient Hebrew, and are so employed all over the Hebrew Bible. (The three are - period of daylight, period of 24 hours, and era.) The question therefore is which of the three was the intent of the author assuming he was devinely inspired. Considering that in two other verses in very close proximity to the beginning of Genesis and within the context of the story of creation the word YOHM is used in the sense of era (at least that is certainly the far more likely intended meaning), I conclude that the era interpretation in the beginning of Genesis is just as likely, if not more so, as the 24 hour interpretation.

David,

What about Jonah and the Whale?

David,

What about Jonah and the Whale?

Well, the word YOHM is one of those Hebrew words with multiple meanings, all of them literal. They are all standard definitions of the word YOHM, so appear in any quality dictionary of ancient Hebrew, and are so employed all over the Hebrew Bible. (The three are - period of daylight, period of 24 hours, and era.)

There was evening and there was morning, a second day.

Carol C. --- You are claiming that the bible never contradicts physical reality, it is just poor translations that make it seem so.

So, how about Jonah and the Whale?

David,

I still don't know why you latched on to Jonah, when there are plenty of "unreal" events in the main body of the Bible (the Pentateuch). And I never claimed that the Bible does not contain stories of miracles. It certainly does, although Jonah is likely not one of them (there is evidence that Jonal is a parable written by one of the later preachers).

What I claim, and I don't see why folks here have a hard time getting this straight, is that modern science does not necessarily contradict the Bible. Miracles are not precluded by science, science makes no comment on them nor is it within its perview to make such comments. But evolution does contradict the proposition that the first homo sapien appeared intact a few thousand years ago. Do you see the difference?